New incubator to drive high-tech growth

Sen. Pat Roberts, right, bows to Kansas University chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little, seated at left and other attendees during a dedication ceremony Friday for the new Bioscience & Technology Business Center on KU’s West Campus.

A new company developing software and records-management services for behavioral health centers will start making calls on possible customers next week, all from its new home in a business incubator on Kansas University’s West Campus.

One employee. One product.

Unlimited potential.

“Within two years, we expect to have at least 10 employees here,” said Bob Etzel, CEO of BrightEHR. “Within four to five years, we should be up around $10 million to $12 million (in sales).”

The company joins Propylon, which creates computer systems for state governments, as the first tenants in the new $7.5 million Bioscience & Technology Business Center, 2029 Becker Drive.

More than 120 business leaders, university officials, government representatives and others gathered Friday afternoon to dedicate the center, one they look forward to filling up with business employees and clients in the coming weeks, months and years.

“We are seeking opportunities to foster research collaboration and instill a more entrepreneurial culture at KU throughout the campus,” she told the crowd. “There’s a heightened sense of urgency for this because, in this economy, Kansas needs us to fill this role now more than ever.”

The center aims to transfer campus research and area expertise into products and services that can thrive in a competitive high-tech economy. BrightEHR, for example, is backed by the expertise and investment of Bert Nash Community Mental Health Center in Lawrence.

“It’s going to give them good return on their investment,” Etzel said.

Working together to finance the center are KU, the city of Lawrence, Douglas County, Lawrence-Douglas County Biosciences Authority, Kansas Bioscience Authority and KU Endowment Association.

Such cooperation is key to enabling businesses to commercialize their products and create jobs, Sen. Pat Roberts said.

“This is exactly the kind of partnership we need to continue to move Lawrence and the Kansas economy forward,” said Roberts, R-Kan. “It’s also just one more example of the cooperation we need to complete what I call the Kansas high-tech corridor — to run along K-10 from Johnson County to Lawrence to I-70 in Topeka and on to Manhattan.

“I have no doubt the high-tech job potential of this corridor could and can be a driver in the Kansas economy for years to come.”

For the first time, a GM multinational has pulled two GM corn varieties from the regulatory and assessment process at the last minute. Monsanto has abandoned its ambitious plans for a so-called "second generation GM crop" rather than accede to a request from European regulators for additional research and safety data.

Monsanto has informed regulators that it no longer wishes to pursue its application for approval of GM maize LY038 and the stacked variety LY038 x MON810. The company also requested the return of all dossier material, making it impossible for any future independent researchers to analyze the data.

Some scientists who have followed these two applications believe that the decisions had more to do with food safety than with commercial considerations. In other words, the varieties may have been too dangerous to be allowed onto the open market.

For the first time, a GM multinational has pulled two GM corn varieties from the regulatory and assessment process at the last minute. Monsanto has abandoned its ambitious plans for a so-called "second generation GM crop" rather than accede to a request from European regulators for additional research and safety data.

Monsanto has informed regulators that it no longer wishes to pursue its application for approval of GM maize LY038 and the stacked variety LY038 x MON810. The company also requested the return of all dossier material, making it impossible for any future independent researchers to analyze the data.

Some scientists who have followed these two applications believe that the decisions had more to do with food safety than with commercial considerations. In other words, the varieties may have been too dangerous to be allowed onto the open market.

The biotech industry is fond of saying that they offer genetically modified (GM) crops that resist pests.

But "resisting pests" is just a euphemism, for "contains its own built-in pesticide." When bugs take a bite of the GM plant, the toxin splits open their stomach and kills them!

The idea that we consume that same toxic pesticide in every bite is hardly appetizing!

But the biotech companies and the Environmental Protection Agency-which regulates plant produced pesticides-tell us not to worry. They contend that the pesticide called Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) is produced naturally from a soil bacterium and has a history of safe use.

Organic farmers, for example, have used solutions containing the natural bacteria for years as a method of insect control. Genetic engineers simply remove the gene that produces the Bt in bacteria and then insert it into the DNA of corn and cotton plants so that the plant does the work, not the farmer.

Moreover, they say that Bt-toxin is quickly destroyed in our stomach... and even if it survived, since humans and other mammals have no receptors for the toxin, it would not interact with us anyway.

Do You Ever Worry About The Sprays Used To Control Pests?

When natural Bt was sprayed over areas around Vancouver and Washington state to fight gypsy moths, about 500 people reported reactions-mostly allergy or flu-like symptoms.

Six people had to go to the emergency room for allergies or asthma. Workers who applied Bt sprays reported eye, nose, throat, and respiratory irritation. Some showed an antibody immune response linked to Bt.

Farmers exposed to liquid Bt formulations had reactions including infection, an ulcer on the cornea, skin irritation, burning, swelling, and redness. One woman who was accidentally sprayed with Bt developed fever, altered consciousness, and seizures.

In fact, authorities have long acknowledged, "People with compromised immune systems or pre-existing allergies may be particularly susceptible to the effects of Bt." The Oregon Health Division advises that "individuals with . . . physician-diagnosed causes of severe immune disorders may consider leaving the area during the actual spraying."

A spray manufacturer warns, "Repeated exposure via inhalation can result in sensitization and allergic response in hypersensitive individuals." So much for the contention that Bt does not interact with humans.

As for being thoroughly destroyed in the digestive system, mouse studies disprove this as well.

Mice fed Bt-toxin showed significant immune responses-as potent as cholera toxin. In addition, Bt caused their immune systems to become sensitive to formerly harmless compounds, suggesting that exposure might make a person allergic to a wide range of substances.

Wow Merrill!
you have set a new low!
double posting, and thus three totally irrelevant postings of cut-and-paste waste.

did you even read the article???

to answer one point in the last irrelevant posting: if the "GMO foods" are that bad, gee what happens?
I know this is a hard question for your obviously limited abilities.
...
answer: if these foods prompt a dramatic increase in food alergies and bad reactions the people coming up with these will not make money! that means they will lose out in the market and these foods will go away.
but to automatically assume that pest resistant foods have their own pesticides in them is a bit silly.
there are many ways that genetically mod'ed foods resist pests.
but this issue is totally unconnected to the bioscience incubator and particularly this story of a software firm starting there, a software firm that produces behavior related software for centers.

now Merrill if you want to focus your silly attentions on something relevant, try googling "behavior control technician" for example.
or better yet, go down to Bert Nash and sign up for regular visits with a counselor/therapist there.

GMO foods have not been around for enough time to provide long term test results. Monsanto is in the business to make money from toxic chemicals not to make humans healthy.

In fact Monsanto files law suits against farmers :

Monsanto Still Suing Nelsons, Other Growers
By Robert Schubert, editor
CropChoice.com
May 21, 2001
CropChoice News

Monsanto continues its lawsuit against a North Dakota family farm, despite an independent body’s ruling that it found no evidence of wrongdoing. Roger, Rodney and Greg Nelson grow soybeans, wheat and sugar beets on 8,000 acres outside of Amenia, ND, in the Red River Valley. (See February story about Nelson case)

The Nelsons are among the hundreds of farmers Monsanto is suing, usually on the grounds of patent infringement. However, growers have begun to fight back in the courts.

The St. Louis-based biotechnology-agriculture-chemical giant alleges that the Nelsons saved Roundup Ready soybean seed from their 1998 and 1999 crop, a violation of its patent. Monsanto engineered the transgenic soybeans to resist its Roundup herbicide.

The North Dakota State Seed Arbitration Board found no support for Monsanto’s claims in its March 27 hearing on the matter.

"No longer are business opportunities merely an 'occasional byproduct' of KU research..."

More and more, profit is the focus and teaching is the "byproduct". I forget, what is KU's actual mission? Classrooms are literally falling apart (you should, for example, see the water damage and mold on some of ceiling tiles - those that aren't missing altogether), but the focus is on a new 7.5 million dollar building. Any classroom space in that building?

NOTE: Two pieces on the ruthless concentration of corporate power in the seed industry that's allowing Monsanto to drive up costs and aggressively undercut the rights of farmers.

In the first half of the 20th century, seeds were overwhelmingly in the hands of farmers and public-sector plant breeders. In the decades since then, Gene Giants have used intellectual property laws to commodify the world seed supply - a strategy that aims to control plant germplasm and maximize profits by eliminating Farmers' Rights.

Today, the proprietary seed market accounts for a staggering share of the world's commercial seed supply. In less than three decades, a handful of multinational corporations have engineered a fast and furious corporate enclosure of the first link in the food chain.

The world's largest seed company, Monsanto, accounts for almost one-quarter (23%) of the global proprietary seed market.

The top 3 companies (Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta) together account for $10,282 million, or 47% of the worldwide proprietary seed market.

ETC Group conservatively estimates that the top 3 seed companies control 65% of the proprietary maize seed market worldwide, and over half of the proprietary soybean seed market.

Based on industry statistics, ETC Group estimates that Monsanto's biotech seeds and traits (including those licensed to other companies) accounted for 87% of the total world area devoted to genetically engineered seeds in 2007.

"The lack of competition and innovation in the marketplace has reduced farmers' choices and enabled Monsanto to raise prices unencumbered." - Keith Mudd, Organization for Competitive Markets, following Monsanto's decision to raise some GM maize seed prices by 35%.